Simon Blackburn

From Simon Blackburn in his new book Truth. He compares skeptics, who suspend judgment on undecideable questions, with relativists.

Today’s relativists, persuading themselves that all opinions enjoy the same standing in the light of reason, take it as a green light to believe what they like with as much conviction and force as they like. So while ancient scepticism was the sworn opponent of dogmatism, today dogmatisms feed and flourish on the desecrated corpse of reason. Astrology, prophecy, homeopathy, Feng shui, conspiracy theories, flying saucers, voodoo, crystal balls, miracle-working, angel visits, alien abductions, management nostrums and a thousand other cults dominate people’s minds, often with official backing. ‘Faith education’ is backed by the British Prime Minister, while Biblical fundamentalism, creationism and astrology alike stalk the White House.

This is the problem. Skepticism that leads to caution about dogmatism is one thing, and relativism that leads to inflated, robust, blimp-like dogmatism is quite quite another.

Really? Molecular biology and computer science are pretty damn popular at my school. An engineering degree is considered a job getter, unlike degrees in philosophy, history, and other such useless subjects.

“No properly trained scientist or engineer would fall for any of the ‘relativist’ nonsense mentioned.”

I noticed that kids in the sciences might reject relativism in scientific matters, but when it came to non-scientific matters (politics, culture, etc.) it was usually “hey, we can’t judge, it’s all relative anyway, it’s racist to criticize other societies”. Maybe properly trained is the key phrase here.

There’s far too many molecular biologists being produced at the moment, the only biological science that pays is probably in vivo pharmacology. Not enough engineers, but then they’re traditionally underpaid. There’s a chronic shortage of chemists (something ridiculous like 1/3rd of students with chemistry training at 16-18 are sucked into medicine). Physicists, while having trouble finding employment as physicists, are very employable in other sectors. Computer science is certainly not in demand, there’s massive oversupply.

An arts degree, on the other hand, will make you less employable than when you started (on average). But I don’t think the Oxford PPE, history or classics students are losing any sleep over it, government/politics, civil service fast stream, media, marketing, PR, consulting, law and the city are still calling.

Many engineers do seem to be ready recruits to the nuttier side of politics (all of the “Objectivists” I’ve met have been engineers). Of course, one could say that about literature students as well (for the LEFT side of the spectrum) :)

Many engineers do seem to be ready recruits to the nuttier side of politics (all of the “Objectivists” I’ve met have been engineers).

– Brian Miller

It oftens seems that the majority of the most gung-ho libertarians work in computer science. I wonder if this is a carry-over from their work, that they think economic/political systems are exactly like circuit boards or software programs, that the free market is exactly like the laws of solid-state physics – that is, eternal, unvarying, and completely predictable.

It also often seems that most of the ID ‘scientists’ offered up by Discovery Institute are engineers. Perhaps the same principle is involved. The planet is exactly like a bunch of circuit boards, and God is the ultimate nerd.

“I wonder how the folks at DI would feel about the phrase ‘God is the ultimate nerd.'” (Brian M.)

Probably immensely flattered, if they’re nerds. God in their own image.

“I wonder if this is a carry-over from their work, that they think economic/political systems are exactly like circuit boards or software programs, that the free market is exactly like the laws of solid-state physics – that is, eternal, unvarying, and completely predictable.” (Brian U.)

I suspect you’ve hit the nail square on the head. The crude, mechanical mindset may be an occupational hazard. Although, as OB points out, there’s that whole chicken-and-egg thing going on.

As an engineer myself I have to confess there’s a grain of truth to the above. At university, a fair percentage of my class were fundie Christians (and, worryingly, military nuts at the same time). And engineers also seem to make up the numbers in those stupid “scientists who support creation” lists that appear from time to time.

I guess engineering and computer science are engineering sciences, not natural sciences, and they involve a lot of applying the laws of science to problems, rather than pure scientific research – which might either pre-select or pre-dispose towards accepting received wisdom.

One little part of your quote that interested me was that “management nostrums” were a “cult”. Too right! Trying to convince managers in any organization (including universities) that the latest fad is misguided or wrong is unbelievably difficult (and potentially risky).

WE also have “high priests” in the form of management consultants whose grasp of scientific method is hazy to say the least.

Yes – I want to do a followup post on the management nostrum thing, linking to an article from a few days ago about Barbara Ehrenreich’s new book. There’s some discussion of management psychobabble there.

Trying to convince managers in any organization (including universities) that the latest fad is misguided or wrong is unbelievably difficult (and potentially risky). WE also have “high priests” in the form of management consultants whose grasp of scientific method is hazy to say the least.

– MKJ

Bill Boisvert wrote a classic essay on the various fads in Management ‘Theory’: ‘Apostles of the New Entrepreneur: Business Books and the Management Crisis’ (in The Baffler #6, 1995; also collected in Commodify Your Dissent, ed. Thomas Frank). It’s one of the funniest things I’ve read.